I’m feeling kind of uninspired, blog-wise. I’ve got a few ResearchBlogging type posts in the mental queue, but they’re not going to get written before the weekend, and the other obvious topics are things that I’ve written about N times before, and I’m not fired up for iteration N+1. So, we’ll repeat last year’s uncomfortable questions experiment, which worked pretty well:

Everyone has things they blog about.

Everyone has things they don’t blog about.

Challenge me out of my comfort zone by telling me something I don’t blog about, but you’d like to hear about, and I’ll write a post about it.

So, fire away. Ask me a question I haven’t talked about before.

(Obligatory disclaimer: I am not promising to answer any and all requests. In particular, questions whose answers might get me in trouble of some sort (“Don’t you just hate [blood relative]?”) will be ignored, or get blow-off answers. I’m uninspired, not stupid.)

As you are now a parent how about issues to discuss with children later. One of my observations that I have shared with my children is that in our current world intelligence is actually a very very important trait for success in almost any area. So how do you and would you balance the issues of mate selection (cold hard facts) vs. the more subjective world of emotions. From a science perspective this is an interesting dynamic because our “mating” genes seem to program us for different responses related to physical characteristics, health, etc.

a personal uncomfortable question: what were your initial career and life expectations when you decided for physics, and how does it compare with the career and life you have now (after getting a tenure)

Or you could go in a different direction. The title of your blog includes the words “principles” how about those the interaction of the physics principles with a different connotation of “principles” – ethics. What about taking some of those subjects that seem dull and boring (n times) and considering any of the implications of discovery, impact, implementation from an ethical/social perspective. You have discussed science fiction but Mars is becoming less of a fiction.. What is the ethical balance of working toward some future activity (mining, colonization, etc.) of Mars vs. that investment in fixing improving saving the current planet. Or are there ethical issues with future activities on Mars to consider? Are their any breakthroughs in the last couple of years that have major implications ethically?

The collision of “principles” might be as fascinating as collision of particles

Ever entertained the notion that attacks on true science from the muscular political creationism/ID lobby might be vitiated by exposure of their great and inexplicable theological flaw (gasp!) dating all the way back to William Paley?

Secularists may wince at the thought of accommodating theistic evolution as a legitimate choice, but it seems the best answer to letting science progress unhampered in a world where people need, as they always have, to sort out their own metaphysics. It might simply be preferable to let them do it after the physical facts are available, rather than a priori.

As a private college professor and a new parent, I’m sure you are aware that the current rates of tuition growth are unsustainable indefinitely. When do you expect to see the rates drop back to inflation levels, rather than continuing to grow 3-4% above it?

1) Does the current measurement and understanding still indicate the positive mass-energy of the universe’s particles balances the negative mass-energy of the universe’s space-time curvature?
2) How can one calculate the combined entropy of the two?
3) Presuming the net is positive, does the increased entropy over having a Universe instead of Nothing allow justification of the Big Bang “Something coming from Nothing” via the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the (probabilistic) tendency for entropy to increase?
4) Presuming it does allow such justification, is there an easier way to get a Creationist to understand this than suggesting they take a PhD candidate, post-Doc, or junior professor in Physics out for drinks? =)

Preamble: This question comes because I’ve been reading websites from modern geocentrists:

1) Under general relativity, is there a valid reference frame that has the Earth stationary? I know that under SR non-accelerating reference frame are fine. But if we assume that the Earth is stationary one seems to get problems (in particular planets past about Jupiter are moving faster than the speed of light). So can we make a valid reference frame where the Earth is not rotating?

You’ve probably talked about this before (and I’m sure I’ll be combing your and everyone else’s archives), and I don’t know how uncomfortable it is, but it’s timely. What advice would you give to faculty candidates for doing well in interviews?

All of us have seen seminars before; that’s the easy part. But the rest is a mystery. What is expected of us during the closed meeting with department faculty (scarily termed “chalk talk” in my invite email)? Also, any pointers for coming off well during meetings with individual faculty? How does one create the impression of being a potential long-term colleague rather than a scared postdoc?

The site is currently under maintenance. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.

Books

You've read the blog, now try the books:

Eureka: Discovering Your Inner Scientist will be published in December 2014 by Basic Books. "This fun, diverse, and accessible look at how science works will convert even the biggest science phobe." --Publishers Weekly (starred review) "In writing that is welcoming but not overly bouncy, persuasive in a careful way but also enticing, Orzel reveals the “process of looking at the world, figuring out how things work, testing that knowledge, and sharing it with others.”...With an easy hand, Orzel ties together card games with communicating in the laboratory; playing sports and learning how to test and refine; the details of some hard science—Rutherford’s gold foil, Cavendish’s lamps and magnets—and entertaining stories that disclose the process that leads from observation to colorful narrative." --Kirkus ReviewsGoogle+

How to Teach Relativity to Your Dog is published by Basic Books. "“Unlike quantum physics, which remains bizarre even to experts, much of relativity makes sense. Thus, Einstein’s special relativity merely states that the laws of physics and the speed of light are identical for all observers in smooth motion. This sounds trivial but leads to weird if delightfully comprehensible phenomena, provided someone like Orzel delivers a clear explanation of why.” --Kirkus Reviews "Bravo to both man and dog." The New York Times.

How to Teach Physics to Your Dog is published by Scribner. "It's hard to imagine a better way for the mathematically and scientifically challenged, in particular, to grasp basic quantum physics." -- Booklist "Chad Orzel's How to Teach Physics to Your Dog is an absolutely delightful book on many axes: first, its subject matter, quantum physics, is arguably the most mind-bending scientific subject we have; second, the device of the book -- a quantum physicist, Orzel, explains quantum physics to Emmy, his cheeky German shepherd -- is a hoot, and has the singular advantage of making the mind-bending a little less traumatic when the going gets tough (quantum physics has a certain irreducible complexity that precludes an easy understanding of its implications); finally, third, it is extremely well-written, combining a scientist's rigor and accuracy with a natural raconteur's storytelling skill." -- BoingBoing